Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Should There Be A Standard?

Hardly, but I had more questions in mind than today, certainly.

And "why this tuner have a so magnificent tone and how does he do that ?")

Nobody could really explain much about tone quality and tuning.

But I was trained to tune nice octaves and nice 5ths before going with the "stretch controlled with partial match theory" , that begin to take the magic out of it

Referring to my results I always was considered as a very good tuner even when I was using more my musical ear than theory.
But I was unable to understand what I was doing.

Yes, I do.

My mentor taught me that ET was a balance between all 12 keys. Tuned by 4th's and 5th's, checked with 3rd's and 6th's; as equally slow-beating as possible.

Unisons tuned by listening to the highest audible partial, octaves mildly stretched.

If it sounded musical at the end of the exercise, mission accomplished.

Ah, if life were still so simple...

Folks:

I am going to do my level best to record and post the M3s and M6s within a P12 later today. I figured out how to do an audio recording, but am having trouble figuring out how to post it.

Under FAQ it says: "Can I attach a file to my post?
When creating a new thread or response, you'll see a "File Manager" link on the "Full Reply" or "New Post" page. When selecting this option you'll receive a popup which will allow you to attach files to your post."

Well, I can't find the "File Manager" link. Any suggestions?

Put it on another server, and link to it. Attachments are disabled on this board.

You've nailed it fairly well and this basic recipe serves many of us tuners of "standard ET tunings" fine. There's is some merit to put a little more or less spice or salt in a dish for taste, but if one substitutes chicken for beef, you can't call it "Beef Wellington" any more. Not any more than a UT tuning can be called a standard tuning, in my books anyways.

Thanks, Emmery!

I just get the impression around here anymore that if I postulate my tunings are based on what I described above, there will be shouts of "Reverse Well!" from certain quarters...

I have thought about this. Let's say you draw a line 1 inch long. If you add enough decimal points it will be either longer or shorter than 1 inch, but not exactly 1 inch.

Likewise, no ET is "perfect". If you add enough decimal points it will either be WT or RW. So someone could truthfully say that half the ETs are RW.

Is it not splitting atoms anyhow?

No problem, but that is an intellectual posture to say so. I dare to have a tuning that suit well the pianist and the music, and can be played in all keys.

I mostly tune by memory, then before being too far I use checks, but the piano is sonorous and consonant. I begin to be good at that game.

I use consonance methods as CHas, pure 5th or pure 12th, for the result they give, but I wont the piano to provide me 5ths that can be of differnt venues.

In the end it is not that difficult , even when looking for progressive FBI the 5ths easily have different speeds.

I certainly will not compromise good sounding slow beating intervals just to have more precise progression of FBI.

Anyway how are the 5th supposed to be , in the temperament .All the smae speed ? progressive ? depends of the FBI ?

What matters is to have a sequence that allow the tuner to avoid falling in the UT totally, so not all sequences are useful.

I like some old recordings for the ET recipe (unknown) they show.

To use a "perfect ET" you need a perfect piano, and even then, is it worth the trouble ? Certainly no in my opinion.

When I was tuning with ETD the musical difference stroke me, while the old timers where not far from that apparently, they differed a lot in the result. They where pushed to more evenness by the 2 ETD users of the group, but when they could prep a pinao for a concert or recording, You find a really musical instrument the next day (or when coming for control)

While the very perfect tunings we provided where never considered bad, they keep us so tight in the "rails" it was very difficult to depart from there, and I find that really not funny.

It is not by adding mistakes that a perfect ET will be more musical, but by providing something coherent with the piano / music on the top of it.

Probably the software's are missing things, plus they do not put the tuner in position to hear them unfortunately. In my experience anyway.

Then it depends of what will be played. Modern jazz and contemporary music should be better with a tighter respect of the rules, but whenever classical music or old style jazz is expected, keeping tonalities is important, to me.

Just for the joy of playing.

Here is a version of ET I tuned on my vertical today

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQbmpxcGlQSU5kcDA/edit?usp=sharing

Not real ET, not far from it ..

I have to work a method for a better control , but at the moment I like it like that...

Here on a PLEYEL F (1930)

short impro.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQaEFMVUg3Tjk1T0U/edit?usp=sharing

OK here is what I tuned on a Charles Wlter Console. Break is E3/F3. A D3-A4 P12 is tuned. The recording starts with the M6/M17 test, then M3s then M6s. I think F3 is a hair sharp:

https://app.box.com/s/d993gdtyoh3oq9wwh525

So Kees, could you extract the beatrates, please?

Nice to hear what other tuners are doing!

Here is a tuning I did awhile back on my M&H BB ......yet another variation on "ET" . A tune we all are familiar with.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/mtrkhsllaag4xfhfwtbs.mp3

M3 5.18
M17 5.19

M3

D3F# 6.0
D#G 6.7
EG# 7.1
FA 6.7
F#A# 8.1
GB 8.1
G#C 8.0
AC# 7.7
A#D 8.4
BD# 8.9
CE 9.9
C#F 10.9
DF# 9.9
D#G 10.9
EG# 14.1
F4A 12.9

M6

D3B 7.3
D#C 7.8
EC# 7.0
FD 7.9
F#D# 8.8
GE 8.7
G#F 9.4
AF# 8.2
A#G 8.9
BG# 11.0
C4A 11.5

Kees

Thanks! Looks like both F3 and F4 were high. Guess I got the P12 right, though.

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?

Jeff,thanks for providing that record

I still suspect that the beat rate impression (interval activity) differs a little for what is measured only at one partial match level.

For instance you would not leave A C# at 7.7, I suggest you are hearing it a little faster (?)

When using the 12th (when enlarging the octave) , the beat rate progression lowers a lot.
I believe that the limit is attained with the CHas method, then some progressiveness is retained more audibly.

Do you have some recorded music played with that tuning ?

Here is a very short few measures where the 12-15 ratio have been tuned a lot, but at the same time I want to retrain more contrast between modulations and tonalities, so I did "something" at that level

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQaVE0SkxKSHVFazg/edit?usp=sharing


WHat is your point about "standard ? PTG exam ask the tuner to show he can follow instructions, that is the same here,with more leeway probably. The tuner is asked not to be enlarging much, to do something moderate.

Best regards

You did that yourself ? sound extremely good, to me. ( a little "static" tonally wise, however.

The basses are a little taking power to the soprano, may be due to the miking of voicing.

It s indeed not ET, I do not get why it sound a little less contrasted than what I like, may be because of the even beating that is more present. Also because the enlarging goes mmuch toward the basses. (I like to "push" it toward the ssoprano, indeed at the expense of warmness of the top of basses)

Excellent job at unison level and it sound tight and stable, too.

Best regards


PS Think of the inverted "S" of the railsback curve , I tend to push the flat portion right and enlarge it, it gives a sense of progressiveness that gives more presence for the melodic part. the high bass region being higher, will influence the soprano more.

I am sorry. I really don't understand your grammar.

Jeff,

If you used the method that I advocate for tuning the initial set of CM3's, you would have easily found that F3 & F4 were slightly too sharp. Your tuning does not look nor sound bad, however and has no Reverse Well pattern or characteristic to it.

Thank you, Bill.

I have a feeling that the Fs ended up where they did because of how I tune the break. I usually tune with a 4th and 5th priority. Concentrating on the RBIs was a different animal for me. I know we differ on this. But notice that all the CM3s are definetly progressive? I am not sure how a CM3 based sequence would necessarily make the Fs lower in pitch

Care to post [a recording of] an ET RBI sequence?